On Mon, 13 Mar 2000, Manfred Spraul wrote:
> "Yury Yu. Rupasov" wrote:
> >
> > Chris Mason wrote:
> > > Hans, I think Alexander has told us exactly what he wants done. He wants
> > > us to audit our entire VFS interface, and make sure that we are dealing
> > > with boundary conditions, special cases, and normal cases the same way the
> > > existing linux filesystems are.
>
> Al,
> is Minix maintained? Minix is a tiny filesystem, and it might be simpler
> for the reiserfs developers if they could mimic Minix instead of ext2.
Minixfs is maintained (as a part of the whole tree - I suspect that last
changes that were not part of global ones and were not cosmetic cleanups
happened _long_ ago; I'll check it when I'll get to my CVS repository),
but in many respects it is worse model than ext2. Just one example: it has
directory-as-array layout and that means that many things that go
unpunished here will be rather bad for ext2, let alone reiserfs. Fresh
example: check the change to ext2/dir.c in recent 2.2.15-pre. Race that
gives a local DoS and is impossible on minixfs... Another thing being
whether reiserfs wants to do the right thing and support removed-but-busy
directories. Soon it will become a non-issue (code is going to migrate
into VFS), but for now they ought to protect from that (tests for
d_unhashed() in rmdir() and rename()) _or_ check for attempts to add an
entry to such directory (should never be allowed). Minixfs chooses the
former. There's also one nasty thing about minixfs - it's a mix of two
filesystems (v1 and v2) and code is not the easiest to read...
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Mar 15 2000 - 21:00:25 EST